ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2022
Assessing the effect of four types of direct mail messages to promote the uptake of residential lead remediation funds.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the efficacy of direct mailing using four types of messaging on promoting the uptake of residential lead remediation (RLR) funds in Lancaster, PA, USA. Study design: We designed a quasi-experiment to assess the effect of 4 RLR messages sent to households in Lancaster, PA by direct mail between September and December 2020: a brief flyer (F); a detailed brochure + the flyer (BF); a health infographic + the flyer (IF); and an application form + the flyer (AFF). Methods: Mailers were sent to addresses in four census tracts; each census tract received a different message. Both English and Spanish versions were sent. The outcomes were the event rate defined as the number of phone call inquiries received, and the number of applications received. The association between type of messaging and household type (owner-vs renter-occupied) was assessed using a chi square test. Results: The event rates for the renter-occupied households were lower than for owner-occupied households, regardless of treatment. The event rates for renter-occupied households in the F, BF, IF and AFF groups were 0.00%, 0.35%, 0.12% and 0.18% respectively compared to 0.93%, 0.45%, 0.86% and 1.32% for homeowners. More applications were received from homeowners, and the event rate of the owner-occupied households was significantly different from that of renter-occupied homes (p-value = 0.001). Conclusions: Event rates and applications received were higher for owner-occupied households than they were for renter-occupied households. Direct mailing of RLR information is feasible especially if households at high risk for lead poisoning are targeted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.